JC Political Thread - For all things political Part 2

That's why most people are middle of the road politically lol... too far in either direction and you get fascism or communism, both of which reduce you to being nobody. Even the most right wing of the many in here would object to being picked on for wearing sunnies, but that's the next logical step. After that.. random and often inspections of citizenship papers, which must be carried at all times?

Of course, this wouldn't happen in Australia.... I hope...

 

I'm with you there, I dont think it should be illegal to go out naked.

Doesnt mean we should ban covering your face in public.

I'm against multiculturism as a concept, I dont feel comfortable around people I cant see, but I do like to know that if for some reason I had a reason to cover my face, I could do so without breaking the law.

In reality if a law like this ever gets implemented by our PC government it will be done so badly that it will leave so much up to interpretation. Would kids dressed up on halloween be getting fined and court dates for having their faces covered? What would people wear if they were at the mountains on snow season? Ban goggles scarves and hoods?

 

The government today, announced that it's changing the Australian Flag to a CONDOM, because it more accurately reflects the government's political stance. A condom allows for inflation, halts production, destroys the next generation, protects a bunch of dicks, and gives you a sense of security while you're actually being screwed.

 

Best thing i've ever heard.


I thought this article was amazing too.

The Leader of Oz: No heart, no brain, no courage | Article | The Punch

 

can i explain how a carbon tax works? because without meaning to sound elitist, a lot of people just don't get it.

say govt needs to raise $10 to run the economy (obviously it's more, but $10 is easy to work with here).

they can:
a. collect it by taxing income, which is counterproductive, as it produces a disincentive to make an honest living, or
b. collect it by taxing inefficient behaviour, which is a better way to do it, as people have a choice about how much tax to pay.

under option B with a carbon tax, the govt can:
1. tax carbon consumption to generate additional tax revenue, and
2. return a certain amount of that tax in the form of assistance, such as to lower income families (there are a range of options for how to do that, such as by restructuring income tax).

this provides tax payers with a choice:
1. consume carbon efficiently, at a rate that means the amount of income tax (or other assistance) returned to them is comparable or even greater than the amount of carbon tax they pay (a saving), or
2. consume carbon inefficiently, such as by owning 3 cars with 5.0l v8 engines and using them to drive to the local shops every time you need milk, running your air con at home constantly, etc. this will result in you paying more carbon tax than you'll save in reduced income tax, or other assistance, i.e. a net cost.

this has led to a situation, in which:
1. the greenies and inner city types living in a small apartment and who don't own a car are loving the idea. they vote greens or labor and watch the ABC,
2. the outer suburb types with 3 cars in the driveway and a 5 bedroom house on an acre block are starting to worry. these are the people who listen to alan jones on the radio.

i've gotta say, i'm more in camp 1 than 2. even if climate change is false, oil and energy prices are going to skyrocket and this will probably have a greater effect than any carbon tax.

 

Ok, so five bedrooms and an acre block may not be the average:

but 2 cars, 3-4 bedrooms , one 500W plasma?....struggle street?, oh but both parents need to work so they can pay their half million dollar mortgage? some Australians need a reality check.

 

i doubt we're going to resolve that debate here.

it is what it is. i was being a bit facetious in my post, but bottom line - consume lots of carbon and you'd lose from a carbon tax. consume less and you could be better off. it remains that some (or a lot of) people have adopted high carbon consuming lifestyles and refuse to believe in global warming or a carbon tax. sorry.. i meant they doubt the science

as i said though, energy prices will almost certainly rise a lot faster than any carbon tax will cause them to. i think people are missing the wood for the trees - we will need to change how we consume energy.

it's the same thing in the US - welfare families accused of having cable tv. vouchers for hurricane katrina victims being spent in strip clubs. citizens of wealthy countries love to pretend they're on the breadline, it's laughable.

 

Sorry but I don't think that is write, I heard through the week the government yapping on about how lower to middle income earners were going to get more money then they paid back in compensation. Can someone please explain to me how that is going to make them stop using more electricity? The cat is out of the bag now, the carbon tax is nothing more then another socialist welfare redistribution scheme.

 

Your JUST SO FUNNY

You completely forget the other part of the tax, the redistribution of it.
How are the people going to change their ways when the PM herself says they will be BETTER OFF under this new tax, why would they change their lifestyle when all that will happen is they pay more in bills and then supposedly receive more than the increases back the the redistribution of the collected taxes.

Can't wait for the answer on that question.

 

Im not really sure that any persons are going to be better off under the scheme if they have they dont change away from the average dependence on fossil fuels, if of course they already dont pay for electricity or use petrol etc, they are going to be rolling in it....perhaps to the tune of $6-800 a year anyway.

It has been explained again and again by the government and indeed the media, here Im spelling it out with some fairly adhoc prices, we dont have numbers yet anyway, nor do we know whether petrol will be included, (at $30 tonne/ CO2 emissions petrol will only go up 6-8c/L anyway, one can see the amount they are talking about is relatively small compared to even the current price of fuel )

Lets say you are one of these families on struggle street(your kids are on the point of malnutrition, wear no name sneakers rather than NIke, you cant even afford to go to Macca’s twice a week, had to settle for the 50in rather than the 60 in plasma, can only afford to run one 4wd and your second car is a 15 year old laser or something) the government pays you back $800, you have $800 extra to spend? Your old power bill was $800 and under the carbon tax with company A its going to be $1000. Company B figures they can provide renewable energy at $900, you didnt go with them before because they were more expensive, but now they end up being cheaper than company A who have had to pay more carbon tax, who are you going to go with?.

Is your logic going to be, govco has given me extra money to compensate, I’ll keep with company A, or Ill change to company B and save another $100? (please, none of the "I couldnt be bothered even lifting up the phone for $100", the amounts are just adhoc/arbitrary for the moment anyway)

Likewise at the supermarket, all other things being equal, lets say Nabisco Vita Brits versus Sanitarium Weetbix, Sanitarium finds decides that by replacing all its machines with ones that use half as much energy will make a significant savings to their energy bill since the price of energy has risen considerably and even after the capital cost of replacing some machines, they wont have to increase the price of their product by as much as Nabisco who are using the same amount of energy as before.
ie if both were at $4 a packet, one goes to $4.10 and the other to $4.20 at the end of the day Nabisco is going to lose out to those people that have nothing to choose between the two other than the bottom line, less CO2 is going to go into the atmosphere as a result.

Bottom line, yes govco has returned some of the tax to compensate as everything is going to be more expensive, but the greener option will have a relative price advantage and that is the one people's wallets will gravitate to.

Or likewise at the electrical appliance store, the price pa for running a 500w 50in plasma for 10 hours a day (about $400 on current 20c/kWh) and perhaps ($500 under the tax).

As most people know, LEDs are cheaper to run, but more expensive to purchase,(yet for most at the moment the plasma ends up in the shopping basket because its cheaper(picture quality of plasma now can be very good and is much better per $ than other options) but if you bought a 150W led that'd be ~$140 per year under the carbon tax you would be saving $350+ per year just in energy costs and that difference may be enough to persuade you to a smaller screen or indeed paying more for one that uses less energy.

 

$500k gets you not much more than a modest - average house/unit in most Australian large metropolitan centers. Go see what $500k gets you anywhere in the Sydney suburbs.

Reaper

 

So why is (say) my carbon consumption bad as I won't get any compensation yet the family next door is clearly ok because they are going to be over compensated???

I have no problem with raising energy prices if the input cost of said energy rises, be it cost of maintaining the infrastructure network (which has been under maintained in Vic at least for a decade or more). It is very much a user pays system - I use more sparky sparky I pay for it, just as does the hypothetical family next door. I would be ropeable if I found myself subsidizing their power bill.

The cat has been out of the bag on that one ever since Gillard decided to consummate her election lie and bring in a carbon tax.

Reaper

 

Yes, you have highlighted my point, many Australians want to have a nice home in metro sydney or melb, they overfinance themselves, living beyond their means and then whinging they dont have enough money when interest rates rise, whatever.

Many think there is some Australian birth rite that everyone should be able to own their own home in metro syd or melb?

Here is a reality for you, people dont have to own a house to live in melb or sydney, nor do they have to live in melb or sydney.

 

Nope I agree. I'm a firm supporter of government and big business gradually moving various departments etc to more regional centers that will underpin growth in those towns/cities and over time reduce the pressure on our capital cities. Unfortunately this is beyond the power of the individual - simply moving out of town away from a job without one to go to is stupid and you are very naive if you think people can/will do it out of hand.

However...... in broad terms, there is an argument that higher population density in our metropolitan suburbs improves the penetration of public transport and it's underlying efficiency. This makes any potential return from it's cost and overall a much more attractive proposition to be built/extended. Of course the better our public transport infrastructure, the less reliant that community becomes on cars.

Reaper

 

Best quote I've heard in ages:

Very true :rofl:

Reaper

 

Not an argument that has any reality in metro melb im afraid. Try getting from Narre Warren to Melton by public transport in less than half a day, try doing it in a car in peak hour in less than 3 hours. Rail infrastructure has to go in before new developments, but what do have in melbourne, no new rail lines in the last 100 years in the metro areas. everyone knows buses dont cut it.

Nope, they aren't going to go there because that's their first choice, but as I said, this idea that everyone should have to own their own parcel of land in this country just where they want it blinds them to the reality of the situation.